DON'T GO TO THE RACES THIS WEEK
Tealady
You are not having much luck at the moment; don't buy a lotto ticket or back a horse this week - you'll do you dough!
In answer to your question - I'll kindly call it that instead of a criticism/attack - I refused to join ASA first time around for that very reason - I reserve the right to make up my OWN mind and be independent.
When they found out my rationale, I was invited to cross out the parts I did not accept, initial them to confirm it was me doing the crossing out, and submit an application modified as I saw fit.
I did, and was accepted on those terms. That, my friend, is democracy and freedom - as distinct from what is happening to our colleague at Horsham via the organisation you are supporting as a consequence of criticising ASA and individuals like myself who suggest that the French legal system is innapropriate for Australia.
Below is a direct copy from the CASA site.
"Variation, Suspension and Cancellation
CASA's role is to protect aviation safety, and its powers to vary, suspend and cancel licences, certificates and authorities must be seen in this light. The purpose of suspension or cancellation action is to 'remove a threat to aviation safety'.
Prosecution
CASA should investigate with a view to referring the matter to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), any contraventions that:
are deliberate and serious or that demonstrate a reckless disregard of the safety rules;
are part of a pattern of similar contraventions by the same individual or organisation;
involve knowing or reckless breaches of the Civil Aviation Act; or
seriously endanger the safety of persons other than the person committing the contravention."
We can deduce from the first part that the cancellation of our colleague would be litmus tested against 'to remove a threat to aviation safety'.
Yet nowhere yet have I seen this aspect tested in a Court of Law to verify that a genuine threat existed. Of course, if it did, and others were jeopardised, it seems that CASA would have to move to prosecution on the basis of 'knowing or reckless breaches' or seriously endangering the safety of other persons. Perhaps the Horsham court situation is exactly that - I don't know.
But, I stand by my earlier comment - let him FIRST have a fair trial, then - and only then - off with his head if he is guilty.
I think, as an old bureaucrat, I can find my original modified application and fax you a copy if you need reassurance - provided the fax hasn't faded away to nowt!
Cheers